Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 16, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:53:08

Durham Report Released! FBI Issues Mea Culpa? George Soros Evil? AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	These agreements require employees of the government of candidates that access these documents to sign confidentiality agreements.
	And why is that?
	Why is there much more reductions, as my colleague said, in these documents than in other documents?
	It's because these documents were signed at the beginning of a pandemic, when everybody was desperate for vaccines, when companies were being told to rush vaccine production.
	Do testing in an unprecedented way, in a way they normally don't do it.
	So these companies were exposed to way higher liability, putting their products on the market than they normally would, because they didn't do the type of testing that normally takes these drugs years to come to market.
	They did it all in less than a year.
	Amazing.
	So that's why these companies said, if I'm going to deliver you this product that I haven't tested in my normal way, I want to have different conditions.
	Of course.
	And with countries around the world competing with each other to get these, the countries had less leverage than they normally do.
	For example, if we were entering into flu vaccine contracts or monkeypox contracts or other things that were normally available, this would be a different issue.
	But these are already signed.
	They were signed at a time the government didn't have that leverage in negotiations.
	We just wanted to sign as many vaccine contracts with as many producers as possible.
	Because Canadians were desperate for vaccines.
	And in the end, it worked out.
	We got vaccines.
	We were one of the countries that got to vaccinate everybody the fastest.
	I actually wanted to not talk during that as much as possible.
	Do I leave that in the backdrop?
	Just in case we want to come back to that.
	We've already seen this clip, people.
	If you're not, I don't know, a month old to the channel or if you didn't miss that episode, we already covered that.
	That's Anthony Housefather.
	I think he was with the Conservatives at one point, now Liberal.
	I forget exactly what his position is.
	Some ridiculous position within the government.
	Let me just double check it.
	Anthony Housefather.
	He's got some title.
	Let me just see what it is here.
	Parliamentarian.
	What's the title that he's got now?
	Like some ridiculous title.
	Hold on.
	Actually, I shouldn't say ridiculous because I don't know what it means.
	He's an MP representing Mount Royal.
	Served as the chair for the Human Rights Committee 2015-2019.
	Following the 2021 election, House Father was named Parliamentary Secretary.
	That's right.
	To the Minister of Public Services and Procurement.
	Procurement people.
	And that is Anthony Housefather, member of our government, Canadian government, talking about how Canada basically bent over, licked the boots of big pharma, might not be the proper analogy, just took whatever they were offering because everyone was so desperate for vaccines, took it, gave them immunity because, you know, it didn't go through the standard testing.
	Jammed it in the arms of as many Canadians as possible, even though it didn't go through the standard testing.
	This was Anthony Housefather's own testimony.
	Not on Locals?
	Impossible.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to go to Locals.
	I'm an idiot.
	I knew I was forgetting something.
	Always forgetting something.
	Yep.
	Adding the RTPM right now, people.
	Well, at least I said I was forgetting something today.
	Be on there in 30 seconds.
	Although, locals, you didn't miss much.
	Well, we're not on locals just yet.
	Now we're on locals.
	Should be.
	Anthony Housefather, Minister of Procurement, explaining just how Canada went about willy-nilly getting these things from pharmaceutical companies that hadn't been tested in the ordinary way.
	And the pharmaceutical companies were so nervous about sticking these as many arms as they could possibly stick them in because they hadn't gone through the safety testing that they normally do.
	They were rushed out.
	They were rushed for manufacturing.
	And they weren't comfortable getting as many jabs into as many arms as humanly possible without the government immunizing them.
	Immunizing them.
	You know, when they say that the jab...
	The only immunity the jab provides is for the pharma companies that sold it.
	The pharma companies had so little faith in their own product, they refused to sell it without immunity from the government because they hadn't gone through normal testing.
	They rushed it out.
	They had no manufacturing protocol, so to speak, which might explain why millions of batches had been recalled after they found foreign substances in them.
	But don't worry, we caught it in time.
	Nobody else ever had any problems.
	And they wouldn't sell it without immunity.
	And the government was so desperate.
	The government was so desperate.
	They did it.
	They weren't in a position to negotiate.
	They didn't have leverage.
	So they gave immunity, the only immunity that actually was conferred by anybody to anybody, to the pharma companies, to sell this product.
	Why do I bring that video up?
	I brought it up, actually, because there are by-elections going on right now throughout Canada.
	Let me see if I can find this tweet here.
	There are by-elections currently going on in Canada, including in the district in which I ran, Westmount NDG.
	Because the man who beat me with 53% of the vote was one Marc Garneau, the astronaut.
	The astronaut has resigned from his position.
	We don't know why.
	Astronaut resigned.
	Mark Garneau out of Westbound NDG.
	They elected him with 53% of the vote.
	He's out.
	So there's a by-election in Westbound NDG.
	There's, I don't know, there's a half dozen by-elections throughout the country, one of which is in Portage Lisby.
	I forget the second name of the Portage, where Maxime Bernier of the PPC is going to run.
	Portage Manitoba is where the PPC in that riding got 22% of the vote.
	They didn't win a seat last federal election.
	They think they're going to do it now.
	So Mark Garneau resigns.
	Is out.
	And they've got by-elections.
	And the woman running in the by-election is Anna M. Ganey, who I just found out Anna M. Ganey, Bob Ganey's daughter.
	I had no idea until I just started doing a little homework.
	She's heavily affiliated with the Liberal Party.
	I know nothing about her other than the fact that she's affiliated with a party that engages in Nuremberg-like human experimentation.
	I know nothing about her other than that.
	That and she's Bob Ganey, who was a great hockey player's daughter.
	He might still be a great...
	I don't know if he's alive.
	So they're having a by-election.
	And I'm going to post that video pretty much everywhere where people can see it so they can understand what the Liberal Party is.
	Now, I've asked Anna M. Ganey if she supports Justin Trudeau in all of his atrocities.
	If she supports the Liberal Party in all of their Nuremberg-like violations, violating informed consent, experimentation, human experimentation, I have not.
	That I know have gotten an answer.
	But I will continue to ask, in the same way that I continue to ask Mark Garneau, how many Canadians were left in Afghanistan with that debacle of an exit?
	How many were left?
	He was going around on the election trail, you know, taking pictures and all this stuff.
	Not...
	Confirming how many Canadians were abandoned in Afghanistan.
	So, I also told Anna M. Ganey in a tweet that, you know, she's running in Westmount.
	They could literally run a lamppost.
	They might even be able to run the lamppost and put up a picture of the lamppost on the liberal signs and people would still elect a lamppost if it were a liberal lamppost in Westmount NDG.
	Maybe, maybe this will be the jinx of the lifetime.
	And a Conservative candidate will win Westbound NDG.
	Maybe.
	But I want everybody to understand how illiberal, how tyrannical, how fascistic the so-called Liberal Party of Canada is.
	And you have Anna Gainey running for the Liberals in Westbound.
	Is she cool with what Anthony Housefather just admitted the Liberal government did to Canadians?
	Oh, all of the employees, they had to sign confidentiality agreements because we don't want them talking.
	Oh, we have to rush through the negotiation process and get these, you know, not tested in the normal way in as many arms as possible.
	Oh, and you don't want to do it?
	You're a crazy anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist, misogynist.
	And now we're seeing the consequences of that.
	So there's a by-election in Westbound NDG.
	Go ahead and vote for who you want to live with in terms of consequences.
	All right, people.
	Good afternoon.
	So we are good on Locals now.
	We should be.
	Viva Fry, can you please explain Diamond membership for Viva...
	I guess that's Viva Barnes Law on Locals.
	I will after I go make sure I understand what it is myself.
	That's from Russell44.
	We are live.
	On Locals.
	I believe we're currently live on The Rumbles as well.
	People, when I say we've got a show, like I take one day off because it was my wife's birthday.
	It was the day after Mother's Day.
	I kind of screwed up Mother's Day and didn't celebrate it other than, you know, well, we celebrated.
	We had a nice evening together, but I had to make up for it yesterday.
	So I take one day off.
	And what happens?
	What happens in the news, people?
	Elon Musk has discovered that you can't criticize someone who happens to be Jewish without getting called an anti-Semite, which it's very curious because for the amount of times that I also criticize George Soros, I'm going to get called one of them self-hating Jews.
	But George Soros, Elon Musk, there's an internet war and now Elon has gone from...
	He just hired Linda Yaccarino of the WEF.
	To Twitter.
	If he thought that was going to make him, you know, Teflon, Elon.
	Teflon, Elon.
	Not bad.
	For Twitter.
	And make him bulletproof from accusations of racism and extremism.
	Well, what did you learn?
	What did you learn, Elon?
	We'll get there.
	Second thing that happened yesterday.
	Not news, I swear to you.
	I read through the report.
	It's 300 pages long.
	It's not news to anybody that was following it in real time.
	It will be news to people who were not following it in real time, but they're lazy, intellectually siloed, and probably will not care.
	They'll go read the talking head spins off of the Durham report, which just came out yesterday.
	Or was it yesterday?
	It just came out.
	And the Durham report basically confirmed.
	There's no other way to explain it other than an absolute coup.
	It was.
	An intelligence coup to try to undermine the presidency of the duly elected president through absolute chicanery.
	We're going to get to that.
	There are a bunch of other things that we're also going to get to.
	But before we get to any of that, people, did everyone see it said contains a sponsor, this video contains a sponsor?
	Because it does.
	I've got a sponsor.
	And it's a new one.
	Full disclosure for this.
	I get a package in the mail.
	I open it up.
	It's makeup.
	It's not makeup makeup, but it's like face skin cream stuff.
	And I'm not into makeup.
	I'm not into makeup so much to the point where you see my blemishes.
	I live with blemishes.
	I live with bags under my eyes.
	Maybe I don't have to.
	Who knows?
	But all I know is I got the package.
	It's GenuCell skincare products.
	I didn't use it, but that's not to say it didn't get rapidly used up within the household.
	Now, I looked into the product.
	I use other products.
	I don't use some.
	But I looked into this product.
	I was on the phone with the company.
	And it has an amazing story.
	First of all, Made in America.
	Second of all, it's the sponsor for the New Jersey Devils.
	Third of all, the story behind this is kind of, I don't use certain things because I'm not into certain things.
	I like to say I'm not vain.
	I'm probably just lazy, but I also don't like doing anything that like, you know, I'm not into those types of things, but some people are, especially when they work.
	And the story behind this company is an Egyptian pharmacist moved to America, opened up a pharmacy, had his own, I guess, proprietary blend of whatever it is that goes into these skin products and put it together.
	And I gave it to a few people who then said, it's so good.
	It works so well in like, I don't know, firming up my skin without having to go through Botox and facial surgery.
	It works so well.
	Within short order, these people who were using it came back to the pharmacist and said, we've got like 50 more orders.
	And from there, it turned into an amazing skincare company, GenuCell, that employs something like 50 some odd people, made in America.
	A product so good that the company built itself.
	So, most popular package featuring deep firming serum and ultra retinol.
	I believe those things make your skin tight and firm and all that sort of stuff.
	Again, just because I'm not into it doesn't mean that it's not good.
	It's good.
	Good for them is right.
	No, it's an amazing story that you have a product that works and it sells itself.
	And they're sponsored.
	It's an amazing stuff.
	So, go to genusel.com.
	You get the promo code Viva.
	It's Mother's Day week.
	You know, I'm told, I don't want to play into any gender stereotyping, but I'm told that women appreciate the product and it does make their skin bouncier and firmer.
	And it's good stuff.
	Genyacel.com, promo code VIVA for 10% off your order.
	The links are in the pinned comment and the company's got a great story.
	Does everyone remember the scene from The Jerk when Steve Martin goes...
	To see Bernadette Peters and there's a guy who's got that mask on and then Steve Martin comes in to replace it because he loves Bernadette Peters and...
	Okay, whatever.
	So, that is it.
	People, what do we start with?
	I don't know what to start with.
	There's so much to start with today.
	Let me just get...
	Oh, we're going to start with something else.
	Okay.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Oh, the camera started moving again.
	It knew that I was going to get into...
	We're going to go from skincare products, people, to apparently militia people, people.
	This is...
	Wait until you see this.
	People have to also...
	Everyone has to appreciate.
	We're going to get into the Durham report.
	We now know.
	And don't take my word for it.
	The FBI came out with a statement and basically said, yeah, the Durham report is basically right, and we implemented stuff to try to correct the problems that Durham identified as per our protocol in 2016.
	Bolsheiser!
	Bolsheiser of the highest manizer, people.
	It's the same FBI that many people allege, claim, believe was involved in January 6th.
	What Warren, not Warren Beattie, Darren Beattie refers to as the Fed Surrection.
	It's the same Fed, same FBI, same intelligence.
	They put in product.
	We'll get there.
	But this is the latest talk of the town.
	Hold on.
	What was the tweet for this thing?
	I've got to remember this.
	People, I've never joined a militia.
	I've never seen a militia.
	I don't know what goes on in militias.
	Philip Reichert, 19,000.
	Husband, father, Southerner, former Army and Space Force Intelligence, former producer at Fox News, educated at Columbia, Quest Point, and others.
	Okay.
	Philip Reichert put out a tweet that says this thing called Patriot Front.
	We're going to look into this in a second.
	We're going to do some real-time exploring together.
	Patriot Front running through, quote, combat drills, end quote, near Tallahassee, Florida.
	Nah, I was going to say, maybe Viva does some investigative journalism and tries to be the 5 '6", very Semitic-looking, Westmount Jewish boy who infiltrates a militia in Tallahassee, Florida.
	Not going to happen.
	Okay, I don't know if Philip Reichardt posted this as if to say, this is the most absurd thing you've ever seen, or posted this as if to say, look how dangerous and serious a threat white supremacy is.
	In America.
	According to Sebastian Gort, what's his name?
	Alejandro Mallorca.
	White supremacy is the most dangerous existential threat in America today.
	So I don't know which way he posted this.
	Let me see if I...
	It is...
	If this is how they prepare for comment, they consider me unconcerned.
	So it seems like he might be buying into the legitimacy of the Patriot Front being an actual militia or whatever.
	For the record...
	This is either Fed or Fed adjacent.
	Okay, good.
	Okay.
	Most of these jabronis look like...
	Okay, good.
	Philip, thank you.
	I'm glad we discovered this together in real time.
	I don't know.
	They look like jabronis.
	I don't know what that is.
	JROTC kids.
	JR Junior Regiment of...
	I have no idea what JR...
	I'll have to Google that.
	It's still questionable.
	Signing up.
	On their website, it's probably the quickest way to end up in an FBI investigation.
	Okay.
	So, we know the way he meant it now.
	Watch this, people.
	This is what's circulating the greatest threat to America.
	That clap is your left foot touching around.
	The one in the middle just snapped for some reason to become...
	Again, I don't know what goes into a militia.
	I don't know what goes into militia training.
	But we've got to find the moment when the guy in the dark jeans with the brown boots gets out of sync.
	Still in sync.
	Still in sync.
	Why did he double tap on his right foot?
	To get out of sync.
	So this is what is being circulated to support the idea that militias are the gravest threat to America today.
	Now, I'm going to bring up a clip in case you think I'm exaggerating.
	Here we go.
	In case you think I'm exaggerating, this is Alejandro Mayorkas on MSNBC, who's going to come up a couple of times today, explaining just this.
	The president yesterday...
	Sorry, sorry.
	Actually, this is in response to the president.
	This is another piece of information that came out when I couldn't go live.
	Alejandro Mayorkas commenting on Joe Biden at a graduation speech or something.
	Saying that, you know, white nationalism is the greatest threat in America right now.
	Asked to opine on this, Alejandro Mayorka agrees.
	The president yesterday at his commencement address for the Howard University graduates called white supremacy the major domestic terror threat in this country.
	Is that correct?
	It tragically is, you know.
	It tragically is.
	In the terrorism context, domestic...
	That's a big caveat.
	In the terrorism context, okay, still a load of rubbish.
	...violent extremism is our greatest threat right now.
	Individuals are driven to violence because of ideologies of hate, anti-government sentiments, false narratives, personal grievances, and the like.
	And regrettably, we have seen a rise in white supremacy.
	False narratives.
	Can you just understand everything that Mayorkas just said?
	Everything that he just said is true of somebody else.
	Is our greatest threat right now.
	Individuals are driven to violence because of ideologies of hate.
	Who might that be true of?
	Anti-government sentiments.
	Bear in mind, anti-government sentiments.
	We are rapidly approaching the point in history.
	Where disagreeing with the government or believing the government is in fact involved in the evils that they are involved in, have historically been involved in, and will probably always continue to be involved in.
	If you adhere to that, if you understand the evils that the government has perpetrated, the atrocities that the government has perpetrated, you're involved in, you're on the radar.
	Talk about Tuskegee.
	Talk about...
	Bombing Yugoslavia for peace.
	Talk about Libya.
	Talk about weapons of mass destruction.
	Afghanistan, Iraq.
	Talk about a quarter of a million Iraqi civilians dead because the U.S. had it on their map that they wanted to invade five countries in 70...
	Talk about that.
	Understand that.
	Understand Operation Northwoods.
	Never implemented, but really almost close to.
	Understand MKUltra.
	Understand Operation Paperclip, where the U.S. government was smuggling in.
	Nazi scientists after World War II so they could be used for the purposes of, you know, picking their brain for science.
	Understand that.
	You might be on the list.
	False narratives.
	Personal grievances.
	False narratives.
	Well, doesn't that just dovetail perfectly into what the FBI did in 2016?
	We'll get there.
	And regrettably, we have seen a rise in white supremacy.
	A rise?
	In white supremacy.
	Can I see some evidence?
	If we were to just say instead of white supremacy, if they were to call it white pride, like they have like pride months for other cultures, criminalizing pride.
	I mean, this is an amazing thing.
	Bill Brown in our locals community put up a screen grab.
	In which I haven't tested this myself because I don't use any of the chat GPT AI thingy things.
	But he asked AI, can I say I'm proud to be white?
	And the answer came back and said, there's no point in placing any emphasis on pride in something that you control that is beyond your control, such as race, such as color of your skin.
	Asked if he could be proud to be black.
	It said, of course you can.
	Take pride in it.
	Literally.
	Literally.
	But the rise in white supremacy or the white bread?
	No, no.
	He meant white supremacy.
	Because anti-government sentiment?
	We're getting to the area of thought crimes.
	Oh, did I close down that?
	There was a punchline to that clip from Mayorkas.
	I had asked, am I allowed criticizing Mayorkas without being called an anti-Semite?
	Because...
	I didn't actually know Mayorkas' mother is Jewish, so technically that makes him Jewish.
	So if I criticize Mayorkas right now, following the Elon Musk logic, is that anti-Semitism?
	Who knows?
	Who knows?
	Okay, let me just see one thing here.
	The first thing I actually want to see, I'm just going to refresh.
	Oh, look at that.
	I think if you talk about...
	It seems if you talk about militias...
	No good.
	Even if it's to...
	Militias are bad, by the way.
	I don't even think...
	I don't know.
	Militias.
	What do militias mean?
	What does a militia mean even that it should be deemed to be a problematic thing even though it's in the Constitution under the Second Amendment?
	And, you know, even if you try to make fun of the ridiculous portrayals of alleged militias, yeah, it's a...
	ChatGPT is programmed.
	Okay, so here's what we're going to do.
	That was Majorca talking about...
	White supremacy being the number one threat in America right now.
	I think a great many other people might disagree with that.
	On MSNBC, talking about it.
	MSNBC is going to come up at least a couple of times during this stream.
	What we're going to do right now, we're going to go over to Rumble anyhow.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Let me give you the stream link one more time.
	I was listening to Tim Dillon on his Negotiator episode and he comes in and he does a check check.
	Jews.
	Is the mic popping?
	And he's like, isn't this like how a white nationalist podcast would start?
	Quite funny.
	Quite funny.
	And it was a great episode anyhow.
	So let's mosey on over.
	To Rumble exclusively.
	If people are not in love with the UX at Rumble, first of all, you can let me know and I can ask some questions and make some recommendations.
	But you can also go to watch simultaneously on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Oh, we're going to get into this.
	We're going to get into this, the deep state.
	Is the actual greatest danger to the U.S. If anybody hasn't read the report, I mean, nobody here is going to be unaware of what's in that report.
	That report is nothing but a synopsis.
	The Durham report is nothing but a synopsis of what everybody who's been paying attention already knew.
	We're going to talk about it, that and more, on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Head on over there, people.
	There are a thousand people here now.
	There should be a thousand more over on Rumble after I end the stream on YouTube.
	Genyacel.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	If you want your skin to look young and radiant and beautiful and cover up your blemishes and you know, all that good stuff.
	Okay.
	Mother's Day special.
	Mother's Day all week.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Ending stream on YouTube.
	Three, two, one.
	Now.
	Oh, mamacita people.
	Let me see.
	Are we good here?
	We are good.
	And?
	Oh, I should have done the Rumble rants at the other side, but let's...
	I seem to have done something with my locals.
	Either Rumble did something or I switched to night mode.
	I don't think I like this, but I don't think I mind it all that much.
	Watchman State said, yesterday you saved my message.
	Is there a good way to message you about it?
	Synagogue, trial, and LP related.
	It's not...
	I will screen grab one more time.
	Watchman Slate, thank you.
	There is no easy way because I don't have my DMs open in Twitter.
	Michael Swade, this one guy who gets out of sync marching is the only guy there who isn't a Fed with previous training in marching.
	P. Moyer says, I think you already started with Mr. Horsefather or whatever.
	Oh, I did.
	I just want everyone to remember that and I want to remind everybody about that.
	Viva la resistance!
	Okay, good.
	Those are the Rumble rants.
	Thank you very much.
	Everybody.
	Okay, what do we start with in terms of the story?
	I have too many footnotes in the back here.
	Let's just start with, oh my goodness.
	Let's start with an article summarizing it, because you're going to see, we're going to start with an article summarizing it.
	I'm just going to draw your attention to the conclusions from the Durham report, because there is no point going through it.
	In detail, it's almost too long to be digestible for those who don't already know about it.
	Read the Durham report here.
	We will.
	We will.
	We're going to go actually through the thing at the beginning that has all the chapters because that's basically just the timeline.
	Let's read how the mainstream media is reporting on this.
	The Justice Department on Monday released the report by Trump-era Special Counsel John Durham.
	You got to wait for the spin on this.
	The man tasked with reviewing the origins of the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
	They don't even say alleged Russian meddling, considering the report came to the conclusion that the FBI was wildly biased, ignored basic standard protocol.
	And pursued that which ought never have been pursued, but we'll get there.
	Four years after his probe began, Durham concluded the Justice Department and FBI failed to uphold important mission of strict fidelity to the law.
	Listen to this.
	Durham concluded that the Justice Department and FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law.
	Do you know what that is?
	Do you know what that is polite for?
	They did not follow the law.
	Some might say that's even a polite version of saying they broke the law.
	Some people might say the actual election interference, the actual coup, came from an FBI that, quote, failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the...
	Yeah, we sort of didn't really follow that important thing called the law about the events during the 2016 election.
	He also found senior FBI personnel, quote, displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities.
	Okay.
	You know what that means?
	They displayed extreme bias, extreme motivated reasoning, extreme prejudice in the manner in which they dealt with things.
	Especially information received from politically affiliated persons.
	You know who they might be referring to there and who they are referring to there?
	People with connections to, I don't know, the DNC.
	You know, that guy Steele, the Steele dossier, was funded by DNC as opposition research.
	They funded.
	The DNC funded.
	By the way, they mislabeled paying for that also.
	Just, you know, just details.
	The FBI knew it was bunk.
	Knew it was bullshit.
	Knew that it was funded, I presume, by the DNC.
	It was leaked via Jim Baker to the FBI in a meeting that Jim Baker, counsel for the DNC, had with the FBI, for which he billed the Clinton campaign, but was ultimately acquitted by a jury of his peers in D.C., politically affiliated persons.
	Let's see if CBS really fleshes this out, fleshes out the egregiousness of this in there.
	Very short article.
	He concluded that the FBI relied heavily on investigative leads provided by Trump opponents.
	Oh, so the FBI relied on lies.
	The FBI relied on the Steele dossier, which was purported opposition research of Trump fabricated, funded by the DNC, leaked by the DNC via their attorney to the FBI who leaked it to Yahoo, who then published it.
	The FBI then relied on that publication to obtain unlawful FISA warrant renewals of Carter Page so they could spy on the incoming president.
	Minor stuff.
	Oh, and then, by the way, and if you got pissed off enough about that to actually head to the Capitol on January 6th to protest, don't worry.
	They had informants and agents provocateurs over there, too, to crucify anybody who was down there to protest this stuff.
	Much of the information disclosed in terms...
	Listen to this.
	This is the spin of all spins, people.
	Don't worry.
	There's nothing new in there.
	If you're thinking it's a bombshell that shows how the deep state tried to take out a president in real time, don't worry, guys.
	They already talked about it in 2019.
	Listen to this.
	But much of that information disclosed in terms...
	But much of the information disclosed in Durham's report had already been revealed in the 2019 examination conducted by the Justice Department Inspector General into the origins of the FBI's probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
	Don't worry, it had all been looked into before.
	That investigation identified several procedural errors, but overall concluded that there was no political bias at the Bureau.
	That investigation, which investigation are they talking about?
	This is...
	Deliberately confusing to people with a short attention span, not me because I'm paying attention.
	That investigation, not the one that Durham just concluded, which was much more thorough, much more long-term.
	The other one, which was done in 2019, that one concluded that there might have been procedural errors, like not following the law.
	But overall, there was no political bias.
	Well, here's a spoiler alert.
	Durham's report, which is much more thorough.
	Over a much longer period of time, concluded they weren't really only procedural errors.
	They were that little thing called, you know, not following the law.
	And it was egregiously, grotesquely political bias that motivated the FBI.
	Though Durham had broader powers than the Justice Department's watchdog, he pursued prosecutions of just three people, two of whom were acquitted.
	The third, a former FBI lawyer pleaded guilty.
	Oh, look at that.
	They pleaded guilty, by the way, and Roger Stone put out a pretty on-point tweet about this.
	Although, I mean, there's a way to Steelman rebuttal Oliver Stone's tweet, which I will, just because.
	They pleaded guilty to alleged foreign interference that never occurred.
	They pleaded guilty to an FBI that...
	Did that pesky little thing of not adhering to the strict fidelity of the law.
	So as the FBI abused of its power through failing to uphold that important mission of abiding by the law, they managed to eke out some guilty pleas of people who pleaded guilty to just end the misery, to avoid potential jail time, because while the FBI is not respecting the mission of the law, people are in fact getting convicted, potentially.
	So while they abuse of the law, while they have politically biased motivations, while they neglect to follow through on, you know, basic rigor, while they refuse to follow the law, they eke out a guilty plea, which the mainstream media just will never let anybody forget.
	Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, there was another guy, I forget his name now.
	And Roger Stone pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about Russian interference that never happened, and the lie, at least one of them from what I understand, was that...
	He lied about having connections to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks that he actually didn't have.
	So he lied about being more connected than he was, and that was his crime.
	That's the steel man of the argument.
	Not that he lied about collusion that didn't exist.
	He lied about something that, I mean, maybe he was just a blowhard and trying to make as though he had better connections than he did.
	Who knows?
	Ultimately, he lied about something immaterial to the investigation in the context of an investigation that found no collusion, no obstruction, I believe it.
	The 300-page report released four years after the probe began can be read here.
	We're going to go through some of it.
	No, we're not going to go through it here.
	Let me bring this one out.
	Yeah, that's just minor details, people.
	four years after it began.
	And it's a It's atrocious, the report.
	It's atrocious.
	Let me see if I had a separate...
	I think I had a separate PDF so we don't have to go through the NBC website.
	No, that's Giuliani's lawsuit.
	Oh, wait.
	Wait until we talk about Giuliani's lawsuit.
	Here's the probe, people.
	Here's the report.
	I'm sorry.
	Let's just zoom.
	Okay, now there was a way that I could get rid of that.
	Good.
	I gotta tell you, like, you know...
	So Durham's reports or Durham's probes over the last few years, they were a bit of a letdown.
	This is not a letdown in substance.
	It's going to be a letdown in that nobody's going to get prosecuted.
	You'll see the FBI's response.
	I mean, it's so outrageous.
	It's like, I mean, it's like idiocracy come to real life.
	This is kind of not so much of a letdown.
	It'll be a letdown in that nothing will come of it, except maybe...
	Something of an awakening, which is something important.
	Let's just read this.
	Report on matters related to intelligence activities and investigations arising out of the 2016 presidential campaigns.
	This is short here.
	This is just the cover letter summary, I believe.
	The attached report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 CFR, which states that, quote, At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel Mueller.
	In addition to the confidential report required by Section 608c, the Attorney General has directed the Special Counsel, quote, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with the law and the policies and practices of the Department of Justice, shall submit to the Attorney General a final report, yada, yada, yada, yada.
	So this is the final report.
	Boring.
	Okay.
	We note that the class...
	This is boring.
	There's nothing in here that we care about.
	Okay.
	It's a class...
	Finally, we want to thank you and your office for permitting our inquiry to proceed independently and without interference as you assured the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would be the case during your confirmation hearings to become Attorney General of the United States.
	Now let's just go ahead and, you know, never speak of this again.
	The timeline is detailed in the...
	Table of Contents is the word I'm looking for.
	Okay.
	You go through their special counsel's investigations.
	I'm just going to highlight under these headers the most amazing stuff.
	Applicable laws, FBI policies.
	We don't really care about that.
	FBI's assessment and investigation of counterintelligence matters.
	Do we want to go for this?
	The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
	So I presume they go through...
	Not I presume.
	They go through...
	What should be the FBI's MO or how they operate.
	They get into the FISA part.
	None of this should be a surprise to anybody.
	You all remember Kleinsmith?
	Or was it Kleinsmith or Kleinfeld?
	Kevin Kleinsmith.
	Always get mixed up between Sean Penn's character in Carlitos Way.
	It's Kleinsmith.
	Kevin Kleinsmith.
	The FBI lawyer who falsified the evidence.
	In the context of the investigation spying on Carter Page, falsified evidence.
	And it wasn't just a deletion from an email that confirmed that Carter Page was an intelligence asset.
	Remember, they're going after Carter Page so they can basically, I don't remember what the word is, two-step spy on Trump.
	They want to spy on the Trump campaign.
	Back it up a little bit further.
	Remember when Trump said that his offices were wiretapped and everyone laughed at him?
	You crazy conspiracy theorists.
	They don't even wiretap anymore.
	Well, it turns out Trump was right in concept, but used a term that might be antiquated because there are no wires anymore.
	There are no landline.
	Nobody taps wires.
	Trump was spied on.
	How did they spy on Trump?
	Through Carter Page.
	How'd they spy on Carter Page?
	They said Carter Page, who was, you know, he had a role in Trump's interim campaign party presidency.
	They said Carter Page was having bizarre meetings with Russian assets or Russian individuals that were bizarre.
	They were bizarre because Clinesmith, in the evidence that was submitted to the FISA courts to obtain and renew secret spy warrants on Carter Page, they...
	Altered evidence to say that Carter Page was not an intelligence asset, which he was, which would have meant that it would not have been abnormal for Carter Page, an intelligence asset, to be meeting with Russian individuals.
	Kline Smith deleted from communications to which he was not a party intelligence confirming that Carter Page was an asset.
	Didn't just delete it, specified that Carter Page was not an asset.
	Submitted this to a secret FISA court.
	Through which they got the initial spy warrant and three or four subsequent renewals through which they used those means to spy on Donald Trump.
	The shit hit the fan when people discovered that there was falsified evidence that was submitted to a FISA court.
	What happened to that lawyer?
	What happened to Clinesmith?
	I mean, a slap on the wrist would have even been more severe.
	He got a back massage.
	He got retroactive suspension of his license.
	No jail time.
	And the suspension, but he was on maternity, parental leave.
	I didn't mean it like that at all.
	I took parental as well when my kid was born, and people made that joke.
	But he took leave because he had a kid.
	Nothing happened to Kleinsmith, and I believe he's now, I believe, unless I'm mistaken, and the chat can correct me, that he's back to being a member of the bar.
	So that's the FISA stuff.
	Let's bring this back up here.
	Ah, no, no, no.
	Let's bring this back up here.
	That's the Pfizer stuff.
	We're going to get to this.
	It's detailed in there, and if anybody didn't know, required findings.
	Let's hear it.
	We've got in the Pfizer section.
	Let's keep going down here.
	Background facts of prosecution decisions.
	The Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
	Evidence of predisposition to investigate Trump.
	That little thing called...
	You remember?
	We're not going to go through it here.
	Because it's 300 pages long and it's probably a lot of redundant stuff.
	You remember the stroke?
	Peter Stroke having these text messages with his lover, Lisa Page?
	I think that's her name?
	About talking about their insurance policy to go after Trump?
	I hear a child crying in the other room.
	You remember that little thing the FBI talking about?
	They have to save the world from Trump.
	They've got an insurance policy.
	For a Trump presidency?
	Oh yeah.
	The lack of intelligence information supporting the premise of Crossfire Hurricane.
	Crossfire Hurricane was the investigation into Trump having ties to the Russian Alpha Bank.
	Going to a hotel in Russia, you know, having nookie time with hookers and pissing on beds.
	The Steele dossier served as the basis for all this, was fabricated by an operative that was paid for by the Democrat Party.
	Let's see here.
	Allegations involving Clinton Foundation.
	Investigative referrals to possible Clinton campaign plan.
	Factual background.
	Oh my goodness.
	Let's go to page 80. Let's just go to some of this.
	The Yahoo News article, page 118.
	Christopher Steele, FBI confidential human source.
	This is Christopher Steele, the guy who drafted the Steele dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign.
	Let's just go take a random gander here.
	It's got to be page 118 and not...
	Okay, this document's going to be freezing up.
	Ah, cripe.
	Cripe.
	Is the whole thing freezing up or is it just this document?
	I think the website...
	So many people are looking at this document.
	It's crashing the website.
	Okay, here.
	Let's just go down here.
	92. This might get swiftly too annoying.
	I don't know what page wrong.
	The FBI thus failed to act.
	Oh no, he's...
	Hmm.
	you you Thank you.
	Let's try this again.
	This is page 97. Let's just read this.
	The FBI thus failed to act on what should have been, when combined with other incontributable facts, a clear warning sign that the FBI might then be...
	The target of an effort to manipulate or influence the law enforcement process for political purposes during the 2016 presidential election.
	Indeed, the CIA director Brennan and other intelligence officials recognized the significance of the intelligence by expeditiously briefing it to the president, vice president, the director of national intelligence.
	Whether or not the Clinton plan intelligence was based on reliable or unreliable information or was ultimately true or false, it should have been prompted.
	FBI personnel to immediately undertake an analysis of the information to act with far greater care and caution when receiving, analyzing, and relying upon materials of partisan origins, such as the Steele reports and the Alpha Bank allegations, all of which were bunk.
	The FBI also should have disseminated the Clinton plan intelligence more widely among those responsible for the crossfire hurricane investigation so they could effectively incorporate it into their analysis of decision-making and their representations to the Office of the OI, Office of Official Investigator, Attorneys, and ultimately the FISC.
	I think that's the FISA courts.
	The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts.
	Whether these failures by U.S. officials amounted to criminal acts, however, is a different question.
	In order for the above described facts to give rise to criminal liability under federal civil rights statutes, the office would need to, for example, identify one or more persons who knew the Clinton campaign intended to falsely accuse its opponent with specific information or allegations to intentionally disregard a particular civil right of a particular person, such as the right to be free of searches or sieges.
	I don't know.
	Carter Page?
	Maybe?
	Hold on.
	I just have to do something else.
	And three, then intentionally aided that effort by taking investigative steps based on those allegations while knowing they were false.
	In order to prove criminal violation of the false statements and or obstruction statutes by a government official, the office would need to prove that the official willfully and intentionally failed to inform the courts or caused another to fail to inform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts of the Clinton Plan Intelligence in order to conceal that information from the court.
	You think they can't do that?
	They got a lawyer falsifying information to continue an investigation and spying on Carter Page.
	Similarly, to prove a criminal violation of the perjury statutes, the office would need to prove, among other things, that the official made a false statement to the court with knowledge of its falsity rather than a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.
	Oh, and what was Kleinfeld's...
	What was Kleinsmith's excuse for having...
	Materially altered evidence and then submitted it?
	I thought it was true and I did it.
	I thought he was.
	I thought he wasn't a known asset.
	I deleted the words that said he was, put in the words that said he wasn't, and, excuse me, it's my first day.
	Can you believe what we're writing?
	What we're reading?
	It's absolutely atrocious.
	In sum, the government's handling of the Clinton plan intelligence may have amounted to a significant intelligence failure and a troubling instance in which confirmation bias and a tunnel vision pursuit.
	We always say like in law when a judge wants to be polite to a lawyer while spanking them judicially, this is how they talk.
	I mean, I'd have to double check to see if it was in Durham.
	It would not be within Durham's purview or I don't know if it was within his authority.
	To recommend criminal prosecution of members of the FBI who partook in this.
	I'll double check that.
	And we're going to discuss this in greater detail next Sunday with Barnes.
	In any case, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Viva Barnes Law for the People, which you can find on podcasts, at Podbeat, Stitch, and all other things.
	This is Durham's way of basically saying, you guys didn't just fuck up.
	I mean, this is borderline criminal.
	And borderline only to be polite.
	And wait until you see the FBI's response.
	Their tunnel vision.
	You had tunnel vision.
	It may have caused government personnel to fail to appreciate the extent to which uncorroborated reporting funded by an opposing political campaign was intended to influence rather than inform the FBI.
	Oh, no.
	They didn't know that.
	They all knew it.
	They were all in on the same scheme.
	The FBI didn't know that the Clinton campaign was using them?
	Bullshit!
	The FBI was using the media to run the story so the FBI could then rely on it.
	We'll get to that at page 118.
	Oh, no, the FBI didn't know that the Clinton campaign might have been using them to launder disinformation.
	Oh, no.
	The FBI is like, it's the most, they had no idea.
	It's their first day.
	It did not, all things considered, however, amount to a provable criminal offense.
	Oh, okay, that's very nice.
	Then we talked about the Carter Page FISA applications.
	Let's just get to page 118.
	My goodness.
	It's either my internet is slow or the governmentjustice.gov website is receiving more interest than it's used to.
	Let's go to page 118.
	Yahoo.
	It's the definition of fascism, okay, people?
	You have a political party.
	Working with intelligence, a politically weaponized intelligence who's working with the media, all of whom are working together to launder disinformation so they can actually persecute, prosecute their political adversaries and actually interfere with elections.
	Meaningfully, meaningfully interfere with elections.
	Page 118, the September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article.
	On September 23, 2016, Michael Isikoff published his article in Yahoo News titled, U.S. Intel Officials, Probe Ties Between Trump Advisor and Kremlin.
	The article detailed Carter Page's alleged meetings in July 2016 with Igor Session, chairman of Russia Energy Conglomerate, and Igor Divyekin, a senior official in the Russian presidential administration.
	The article contained information that was nearly identical to the Steele report, Oh, do you know why?
	Because it was born out of the Clinton campaign lawyer leaking that to the FBI that leaked it to Yahoo News that then published it based on sources.
	Oh, it's such an amazing thing.
	How could that be the case?
	The information in the article allegedly came from a quote, well-placed Western intelligence source and had been confirmed by a quote, senior U.S. law enforcement official.
	Lies, lies, lies.
	Which U.S. official confirmed it?
	Was it the same 51 who signed the letter confirming that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation?
	Who was it?
	Let me see if we answer this question here.
	A review of communications between and amongst Crossfire Hurricane personnel revealed that senior investigators, including Case Agent 1 and Supervisory Special Agent 1, believed the, quote, Western intelligence source, end quote, was Steele.
	Oh, who paid him?
	Who paid him?
	Further, a review of communications also revealed that members of the investigative team expressed disappointment that Steele had provided the information to the media, believing justifiably that such an action would put the Page FISA application in jeopardy.
	As discussed in more detail below, until late in the process, several drafts of the Page FISA application contained a footnote that explicitly attributed the information in the Yahoo News article to Steele.
	Do you know who didn't bring that footnote up to the judge?
	Oh, my goodness.
	And then it goes on.
	But it goes on forever.
	But actually, what I want to do is go back to the table of contents because it's almost more...
	Okay, so we got Danchenko.
	We talked about Danchenko a lot, but we can...
	The FBI's failure to investigate Charles Dolan's role as a possible source for the Steele reports.
	And then we get into the end here.
	Oh, my dog is pooping on the floor.
	FBI's failure to investigate Dolan.
	CH, we're at item H, page 191.
	Meetings with Papadopoulos Page and a third campaign about the Yahoo News article.
	Crossfire Hurricane investigators submit the initial FISA application on October 21, 2016.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Alpha Bank.
	Hold on.
	Punch!
	Don't do that.
	All right, let's just get...
	We're going to go to the conclusions.
	In fact, we're going to bring this window down, bring it out, and bring the conclusions before I go to the chat.
	It goes on and on, but none of it will be radically new for anyone on this channel.
	And...
	Here we go.
	The bottom line of Durham's report, by the way.
	So I highlighted the Yahoo News article.
	Let's just get to the end.
	We'll skip to the end.
	Page 303, people.
	Bias or improper motivation.
	I mean, you could read through the entire article.
	It's all stuff that we've talked about throughout the last three or four years, and it's not news to anybody who was paying attention.
	Bias or improper motivation.
	This is the findings of Durham.
	Many people were disappointed with Durham, and many people still will be because they're going to say, good, you got...
	A nice report and nothing's going to happen.
	The OIG review of Crossfire Hurricane says that we did not find document or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek the FISA authority on Carter Page.
	It also says that while we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the FBI personnel, we did not receive satisfactory explanation for the errors or problems we identified.
	Let me make this a little bigger here.
	In this report, we've referred to the possible impact of, quote, confirmation bias.
	I mean, confirmation bias sometimes will have the effect of, like, you know, causing people to prefer certain conclusions versus another in studies, in research.
	We're talking about criminal law enforcement, the FBI, and they're calling it confirmation bias when it's politically weaponized intelligence that sought to interfere and influence American elections.
	In a way, That makes January 6th look like child's play.
	Confirmation bias was widely understood as a phenomenon describing how information is processed by individuals and groups.
	It stands for the general proposition that there is a common human tendency, mostly unintentional, for people to accept information and evidence that is consistent with what they already believe to be true.
	Skipping the rest of this verbal diarrhea.
	Throughout the duration of Crossfire Hurricane, facts and circumstances that were inconsistent with the premise that Trump and or persons associated with Trump campaign were involved in a collusive or conspiratory relationship with the Russian government were ignored or simply assessed away.
	Well, that's how you want the most powerful intelligence agencies and crime investigation agencies to work.
	Let's just ignore it.
	Indeed, as set forth in certain sections, from before the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, some of those most directly involved in the subsequent investigation had, one, expressed their open disdain for Trump, stroke AL.
	Two, asked about whether they would open an investigation on Trump.
	A little bit of a variation on one.
	And three, asserted that they would prevent Trump from becoming president.
	That's not confirmation bias, Durham.
	I appreciate you have to be polite.
	That is political corruption of the highest order.
	That is borderline, if not overt, coup material.
	As discussed throughout this report, our investigation revealed that the stated basis for opening a full investigation to determine whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were writing and or coordinating activities with the government of Russia was seriously flawed.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	We're going to get to the distinction between a full investigation and a preliminary investigation.
	And the liars at MSNBC, which we're going to see in a second, they want you to believe the only mistake the FBI made here was opening a full investigation and not just a preliminary investigation.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You opened a full investigation to bullshit charges that were based on nothing but lies that were sponsored, paid for, by the political adversary who was using you to then politically persecute.
	the political adversary after having been duly elected and maybe a little bit before.
	FBI's failure to critically analyze information that round counter to the narrative of Trump-Russia collusive relationship exhibited throughout the cross-fine hurricane is extremely troublesome.
	Let's keep going, people.
	It gets worse.
	Can I see this one here?
	Oh, yeah, here we go.
	Let's just get some examples.
	There was a complete lack of information from the intelligence community that corroborated the hypothesis upon which crossfire hurricane investigation was predicated.
	A complete lack of information that led to three years of a witch hunt undermining the duly elected president.
	I mean, it could have led to a civil war in some sense.
	Maybe not like the 1812 Civil War.
	1872?
	Holy crap, I'm sorry.
	I might have just inverted numbers.
	It was 1876.
	1876.
	1872.
	Damn it.
	Let me just see here.
	Let me just check my notes.
	It had to have been 1872, I think.
	What else?
	The FBI generally ignored significant exculpatory information provided by Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Trump's senior policy advisor, one, during recorded conversations.
	Oh, what's that?
	They ignored exculpatory evidence?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	That's a civil rights violation last time I...
	Checked in my limited understanding as a Quebec-trained attorney.
	FBI failed to pursue investigative leads that were inconsistent with their theory of the case, i.e.
	Page's recorded denials of having any relationship with Paul Manafort, yada yada.
	FBI failed to take Page up on a written offer he made to Director Comey to be interviewed about allegations in Michael Iskos' Yahoo News article.
	Okay, they get better.
	Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not even ask Steele about his role in providing information to Michael Isikoff as contained in the Yahoo News article, information that essentially accused Carter Page of colluding with the Russians.
	And thereafter, the same investigators demonstrated a willingness to contort the plain language of the article to suggest it was not Steele, but Steele's employers who had given the information to Isikoff.
	Here's the best one, I think.
	The FBI ignored the fact that at no time before, during, or after Crossfire Hurricane, were investigators able to corroborate a single substantive allegation in the Steele dossier reporting.
	Just that little thing.
	At no point in time could they corroborate any one allegation in that report.
	And do you know why?
	It was lies funded by, paid for, mandated by the Clinton campaign.
	Leaked to the FBI by the Clinton campaign lawyer.
	There was a complete failure on the part of the FBI to even examine, never mind resolve, the serious counter-espionage issues surrounding Steele's primary subsource, Igor Danchenko.
	There was more.
	I mean, it's just in your face.
	Here we go.
	In your face!
	No, we already did that one.
	Did I miss one here?
	Okay, so I got that.
	Just a little confirmation bias, people.
	It's not a coup.
	It's confirmation bias.
	Just that minor thing of actually never interviewing the people with actual ties to foreign Russian Influencers?
	People.
	The Crossfire Hurricane investigators provided only partial and, in some instances, misleading information to the department attorneys working on the FISA applications while withholding other highly relevant information from those attorneys and the FISC that might cast real doubt on the probable cause assertions.
	That's all that happened, people.
	It's just a little bit of confirmation bias.
	It's a coup.
	It was a coup.
	It's still going on.
	And by the way, the very same people that planned, orchestrated, and carried out this coup and political persecution, they're the same ones who were involved in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the alleged Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot.
	They're the same ones who were involved in January 6th.
	Bear in mind, people, Gretchen Whitmer, you had more FBI agents and informants than defendants.
	January 6th, you had FBI agents and informants infiltrating the Oath Keepers in advance of January 6th.
	The Proud Boys, in advance of January 6th, it was this infiltration that allowed a jury of their peers to come to convictions of, what's the word, seditious conspiracy.
	They were infiltrating these terroristic militias well in advance of January 6th, and yet...
	Dropped the ball on January 6th.
	Had no idea it was coming.
	Despite having infiltrated, allegedly, these militias.
	But hold on.
	We gotta get here.
	Don't spoil the punchline, people.
	Don't spoil the punchline.
	This is the actual response from the FBI.
	I mean, I thought it was a joke.
	I'm not joking.
	I thought it was a joke when I saw this.
	Don't read the person's tweet.
	You don't want to spoil the surprise here.
	This is the actual response.
	From the actual FBI today.
	Okay, this dog is driving me crazy.
	Let me just see something.
	Yeah, she's driving me crazy.
	Hold on.
	Oh my gosh, I must pull my computer over.
	Get out.
	Oh, sorry.
	I want to be able to read this properly with proper inflection without being distracted by Pudge the paralyzed puddle who's dragging stuff across the floor that nobody needs to see.
	The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time.
	Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps...
	Missteps.
	I mean, Durham was being forgiving enough by calling it confirmation bias, which is, you know, that's like, I can't even think of an analogy here.
	They call it missteps.
	Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented.
	Could have been prevented.
	Not would have been prevented.
	It could have been.
	This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with rigor.
	With the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.
	This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor.
	You haven't been doing it with that rigor.
	The whole report concludes in 2016, you didn't do it with rigor.
	Objectivity and professionalism.
	You did it in a confirmationally biased manner.
	Ignoring exculpatory evidence.
	Not corroborating any evidence.
	Ignoring.
	Falsifying.
	Oh, no.
	We acknowledge we did what Durham says we did.
	Since then, we've put in protocols.
	So had that been in place back then, surely it wouldn't have been a problem.
	Because it's the first time the FBI has ever done anything bad.
	It's the first time the FBI, you know, it's not like they were involved in...
	I don't want to overstep my knowledge here.
	It's not like they were involved in dealing drugs, dealing drugs in inner cities, smuggling guns to cartels.
	It's not like they were involved in any of that stuff in the past.
	It's not like the government had ever done things like, you know, experimented on its own citizens, kidnapped homeless people and the mentally ill to administer drugs to them in an effort to, you know, pursue mind control.
	So they could be used against the Ruskies.
	It's not like the FBI has ever done anything bad before 2016.
	And it'll never happen again.
	Me scoozy.
	Too bad.
	So sad.
	Forget about the three years of civil unrest that the FBI inspired.
	That was actually their answer.
	It's an admission of wrongdoing in no uncertain terms.
	We did it.
	We did it.
	We've since put in protocols that would prevent us from potentially violating civil rights.
	It might not have happened had we had then in place what we have in place now.
	But it gets even worse.
	That is, as far as I'm concerned, nothing more than an admission of actual wrongdoing and possible criminality.
	While the FBI sits there and admits...
	That they did it.
	You've got your MSNBC, MSN propagandists defending the FBI.
	You can't make this stuff up, to quote Mark Robert, people.
	You can't make this stuff up.
	How do I get out of this?
	Okay, close this.
	You can't make this stuff up.
	This is...
	Okay, first of all, before we get into it, who's Barb McQuaid?
	Wife, mom, okay, fine.
	University of Michigan Law, okay, fine.
	So she's a lawyer.
	She's got to be a professional.
	I mean, after all, the FBI are professionals too.
	They surely wouldn't be violating civil rights because of confirmation bias, ignoring exculpatory evidence, falsifying evidence.
	I mean, it's the FBI.
	Had we had in protocols that are law, well, if we had only had a protocol that said, you know, FBI attorneys can't falsify documents to submit to a court, then it wouldn't have happened.
	Probably.
	Maybe.
	Who knows?
	Fingers crossed.
	Law professor, U.S. attorney.
	I don't know what these things are.
	MSNBC legal analyst.
	Oh, well, there we go, sir.
	Oh, author of the forthcoming book, Attack from Within, How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.
	Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've just read, we didn't read through the entire report, nor do we have to, but we've read through, you know, a substantial, or the substantive part of it.
	Let's hear how Barb McQuaid, MSNBC legal analyst, spins it.
	One, how long does this bloody thread of Twitter diarrhea go on for?
	20?
	Okay, we might not get all the way down.
	I have a short attention span.
	Durham report is in.
	Don't worry, people.
	It's a nothing burger.
	After four years, review of one million documents, 490 interviews, his conclusion is that the FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation instead of a full investigation in 2016.
	Can you believe that someone actually tries to lie to people so badly?
	His conclusion was that they should have opened a preliminary investigation, which subtly suggests sufficient guilt to open a preliminary investigation instead of a full investigation.
	Threat.
	The only difference between full investigation and preliminary investigation is the duration and the authorities that may be used.
	This is hair-spitting quibble and one on which the FBI routinely disagree.
	Oh, it's a hair-spitting quibble.
	Durham also minimizes the reasons FBI was alarmed enough.
	He's alarmed enough to open a full investigation on information.
	He doesn't minimize it.
	Pathological liar.
	He doesn't minimize it.
	He says they had no basis.
	They couldn't corroborate one shred, one iota of the evidence upon which they relied to open their full investigation.
	And it would have been different from the preliminary investigation, except for maybe the damage would have been less.
	But you expect a politically motivated, confirmation-biased, weaponized FBI, Is somehow going to conduct a preliminary investigation with more integrity than a full investigation?
	They just want to take the preliminary investigation and use it as an excuse to get to a full investigation.
	The lies and the audacity to urinate in your face and tell you it's raining.
	According to Orsay, Papadopoulos said Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist in this process.
	This is when you just get into the confuse and conquer.
	Number one.
	It's a lie.
	Bold-faced lie, but anybody who doesn't read the report will not know.
	Number two is a hair-splitting over the lie.
	Oh, yeah.
	The only conclusion was that they should have gone to a preliminary investigation, not a full investigation.
	Bullshit lie.
	Oh, the difference between...
	And let me just add some detail to the first lie, which is how you know you're being lied to.
	This is like a kid offering too much detail.
	Oh, yeah, I went to the movie.
	I went to school and the teacher got mad at me because my homework was late when the kid actually just, you know, played hooky and went to a movie theater.
	Oh, the only difference between the FL and PL, yada, yada.
	Durham also minimizes another lie, the reasons why the FBI was alarmed enough.
	And then we're just going to get into, like, a threat of diarrhea.
	And by the way, a threat of diarrhea that attempts to reestablish facts that Durham reviewed and came to the conclusion were bogus.
	Trump campaign members also had ties to Russia.
	Oh, Mike Flynn was paid $45,000 for Russia today.
	What part of not one allegation in the Steele dossier was substantiated did you not understand McQuaid?
	McQuaid.
	Carter Page had been meeting with Russian intel officers.
	It now appears that he was unaware that they were trying to recruit him.
	What part of he was a known asset to intelligence did you not understand McQuaid?
	We now know the FBI was unable to corroborate the Steele dossier.
	You know why?
	Because it was bunk!
	It was bunk.
	These are lies.
	This is MSNBC legal analysts, which contained explosive details about Russian compromise on Trump.
	That's 2020 hindsight.
	No, it wasn't!
	It was one-on-one foresight.
	Nothing could be corroborated in that Democrat National Committee, Hillary Clinton campaign-funded bullshit dossier.
	Nothing could be corroborated in it.
	And it was forcible on his face for anybody paying attention at the time.
	In fact, some aspects of the Steele dossier were confirmed by Mueller and the DNI.
	Oh, I mean, this is like, okay, sorry.
	I don't think you read the report, McQuaid.
	In addition to criticizing the FBI for opening the full investigation instead of the preliminary investigation, Durham also ignores other facts and helps advance the narrative that the Russia investigation was a hoax.
	They're clinging to it.
	They're still clinging to it.
	It's absolutely stunning.
	The only winner here is Russia, which succeeded in its mission to get its favorable candidate elected.
	I mean, it's farcical.
	You have Barb McQuaid defending the FBI and saying they did nothing wrong when the FBI is apologizing for the wrong it did.
	The FBI did nothing wrong.
	FBI?
	oh yeah, we did something wrong and had we had protocol in place that we have in place now, then it might not have happened.
	Right.
	It's a bloody joke.
	It would be a bloody joke if it weren't so damn devastatingly destructive.
	Let me see if we've got any crumble rants here.
	There are no new crumble rants that I need to address.
	Good.
	All right, let me see if I have anything else on the steel dose here.
	Let me see here.
	Okay, we got this.
	Going to close this down.
	I'm going to go through my bookmarks just to make sure we didn't miss anything on the Durham report.
	Before moving on to Giuliani being sued and wait until you see some of the allegations in that lawsuit.
	It's absolutely outlandish.
	Anthony Housefather.
	Okay, we got that.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, no.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	John Walsh.
	We're not done with the propagandists yet.
	Here's John Walsh.
	Just...
	He's spitting on you.
	He's not pissing on you.
	He's spitting on you and calling it rain.
	One more time.
	It wasn't a hoax.
	Russia did interfere in the 2016 election to try to help elect Trump.
	Okay, just keep saying it over and over again, despite everything else to the contrary.
	The Trump campaign did welcome and encourage the interference.
	There was collusion.
	Don Jr. took a meeting.
	Manafort...
	Trump did obstruct the Mueller investigation.
	Repeatedly.
	Did FBI make mistakes?
	Sure, but their intentions were noble to protect this country.
	You obviously missed the part where he said they were not noble.
	It was confirmation bias.
	They ignored exculpatory evidence.
	You're a liar.
	Is it John Walsh?
	I think it's John Walsh.
	But hold on.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Where is it?
	Where's the video that he put out?
	Because it's just...
	Is it this?
	Share?
	No, that's not it.
	Close that.
	Maybe we're going to be spared some rubbish of John Walsh.
	No, here it is.
	You're going to enjoy it.
	This is my assessment, by the way.
	I know nothing of Walsh freedom.
	I know nothing.
	Host, white flag with Joe Walsh.
	Joe Walsh, former candidate for president, former congressman, hashtag be breathed.
	I know nothing of Joe Walsh.
	He must have been a very good-looking younger person who got away with a lot and got a lot accomplished because of his chiseled good looks.
	I don't know anything about him, so anybody who knows him, end of his history, tell me if I'm right.
	This is a man who got a lot in life because he was so good-looking and so charismatic, and he relies on that to persuade above and beyond.
	Anything substantive.
	That's my assessment, and maybe I'm just projecting because I know somebody who reminds me exactly of him in my own life who was very good-looking and got away with a lot and got far in life because of good looks.
	And if you're exhausted, as I am, tough.
	And if you're, by the way, if you're sick and tired of old Joe Biden, tough.
	Grow the hell up.
	Listen to this.
	Right now, he may be, it looks like he will be, again, the only person standing between Donald Trump and the White House.
	Permanent smolder.
	Joe Walsh is permanent smolder, like from Tangled, the movie.
	It's my assessment.
	Anybody who knows him, tell me if I'm right, because I think I'm good at reading people.
	Listen to the drivel that comes out of his mouth now.
	Go ahead and complain about Joe Biden.
	Go ahead and complain about the fact that he's too old.
	Go ahead and complain about the fact that he needs a nap every day.
	Go ahead and complain about the fact that he has a hard time putting eight or nine or ten sentences together.
	Senile.
	I thought this was a joke.
	Look at that dramatic pause.
	Right now he's in.
	And if you're exhausted as I'm too old, go ahead and complain about it.
	Listen to this.
	Go ahead and complain about Joe Biden.
	Go ahead and complain about the fact that he's too old.
	Go ahead and complain about the fact that he needs a nap every day.
	Go ahead and complain about the fact that he has a hard time putting eight or nine sentences together.
	Oh my God!
	It's not a joke!
	Right now, he's it.
	Go ahead and complain about the fact that Joe Biden is senile, can't string together sentences, can't stay awake, He's too old.
	Go ahead and complain about all that.
	But we need the too old, incompetent, senile, demented man who can't string together sentences in office because he's still better than Trump as Biden walks the world towards World War III.
	I swear to you, I thought that was a joke and I was like, okay, he's finally seen the light.
	Hilarious.
	All right.
	I think that's it.
	Let's get to Giuliani.
	Here.
	I'm going to play a clip from our interview with Alex Jones because it's on point.
	Once you know their playbook, it seems fancy.
	They follow the same methodology over and over again.
	So it's not that I'm predicting stuff.
	Everybody is like a dog to their own vomit.
	Everybody, as you get older, kind of follows the same routine.
	It's who we are.
	It's a curse.
	Hold on.
	Sorry.
	Alex, what does that expression mean?
	Like a dog throws up and then eats it?
	Yes.
	Okay, so it means bad habits.
	They play the same move over and over again.
	And for some miracle, it continues to work.
	And what's the move, people?
	Well, it could be any one of a number of slanderous accusations, but it always culminates, people.
	It always culminates.
	In accusations of sexual misconduct.
	And that's not to say that they're not true sometimes when they're true.
	And it's not to say that they're not true sometimes when they're not true.
	You know, you can have your Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations.
	And you can have your Brett Kavanaugh, your Clarence Thomas sexual misconduct allegations.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Just go through the names.
	Go through the numbers.
	When they want to take someone down.
	It will go through any number of things.
	Racist remarks, sexual misconduct.
	Then they'll get you ethics, whatever.
	Clarence Thomas, sexual misconduct.
	Brought up at the last minute in the exact same way.
	Brett Kavanaugh, sexual misconduct.
	35 years old from Christina Blasey Ford, whom we have not heard from since.
	Sexual misconduct allegations, Donald Trump.
	Sexual misconduct allegations, Joe Biden.
	Except those don't get pursued because those sexual misconduct allegations, which were known at the time, even according to lawyers, Lisa Bloom, known, acknowledged, recognized, but set aside because, you know, you got to go after the other guy who talked about grabbing him by the...
	So you got to put the other guy who apparently grabbed him by the...
	in power.
	It's outrageous.
	So that's the way it goes.
	And so you've had now Giuliani defamed.
	You know, called all sorts of names.
	Crazy, yada, yada.
	What's the playbook now, people?
	It is lawsuit based on sexual misconduct.
	Sexual assault, even.
	We're going to read through very...
	I took notes.
	Where are my notes?
	Here.
	I took some notes on the lawsuit.
	Rudy Giuliani sued for $10 million by former aide over sexual assault.
	New York former associate of Rudy Giuliani is suing him for sexual assault, accusing Donald Trump's former president and lawyer of hiring her to fulfill his desire for a sexual relationship.
	In a civil complaint, she sued for $10 million.
	Noel Dunphy, that's from Modern Family, isn't it?
	He said he began abusing her almost immediately after hiring her as an off-the-books employee in January 2019.
	He said sexual demands was an absolute requirement of the job.
	Dunphy had first publicly discussed her accusations in January, but added many new details in a 69-page complaint against Giuliani and three of his namesake companies in a New York State court in Manhattan.
	Thank you.
	Ted Goodman, spokesman for Giuliani, says he unequivocally denies the allegations.
	Mayor Giuliani's lifetime public service speaks for itself.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	Giuliani, 78, named...
	Okay, we can skip all this stuff.
	So she was allegedly hired to be paid $1 million a year.
	He was going to represent her in a pending lawsuit, in a pending dispute that she was going through allegations of sexual abuse.
	And that's about the most important part of it.
	Okay, so let's close this and just go through some of the key allegations in the lawsuit.
	Here, check this out.
	And there's one that's just going to, I mean, it blew my mind when I saw it.
	I thought it was, I again thought it was a joke.
	We can do it relatively quickly, people.
	Because we don't need to go through all of this.
	It's a lengthy...
	It reads like a tell-all novel, but it's a lawsuit for millions and millions of dollars.
	Giuliani hired her in January 2019, at the height of his influence, serving as the lawyer for Donald Trump.
	He was a major figure in public politics, yada yada.
	Giuliani worked aggressively to hire Ms. Dunphy, offering her what seemed like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
	Apparently, he had tried to hire her back in 2016.
	She said no, came back with a million dollars, plus the perk of he would represent her in her ongoing dispute with an abusive ex-partner.
	The chance to work with an influential politician once dubbed America's mayor, combined with the prospect of free legal representation by a former United States attorney for the Southern District of New York was a rare opportunity, simply too good to pass up.
	Came with a significant catch.
	Onto the table.
	Unfortunately, Giuliani's seemingly generous offers were a sham motivated by his secret desire to pursue a sexual relationship with Dunphy, which he ended up succeeding in pursuing, whether or not you think it was consensual, whether or not you think it was mutually exploitive, or whether or not you think it was sexual assault, as alleged.
	That's what trials are for, for all the evidence to come out.
	One thing from this case that's obvious is Dunphy was recording conversations and saving text messages while engaging in activity that she now claims was sexual assault and by no means consensual.
	These are all allegations, people.
	Serious allegations.
	And this is not meant to write off the seriousness of the allegations, nor is it meant to take for granted the...
	Truthfulness of the allegations, because when someone engages in a relationship with someone for two years and then waits several years before suing, while making these types of allegations, well, people are going to have questions, although people might say, you know, you can't sue at the time because there's too much trauma, etc., etc.
	Giuliani took Viagra constantly.
	While working with Ms. Dunphy, Giuliani would look at Ms. Dunphy, point to his erect penis, and tell her that he could not do any work until you take care of this.
	Thus, Ms. Dunphy...
	Worked under the constant threat that Giuliani might demand sex from her at any moment.
	And apparently they engaged in it frequently.
	Frequently.
	Giuliani also abused his position as Dunphy's lawyer to pressure her into sex.
	Now, there's a serious issue about engaging in sexual relationship with a client of yours.
	Ethical?
	Potentially illegal?
	Does that amount to evidence of allegations of sexual assault?
	I'm not going to read all this stuff, but you can see it.
	He would give her $300,000 if she would forget.
	Dunphy continued to work for Giuliani, and the company's work became increasingly hostile.
	In addition to his sexual demands, Giuliani went on alcohol-drenched rants with sexist, racist, and anti-Semitic slurs, which made the work insufferable.
	Okay, now let me just see here.
	I got a bunch of paragraphs that I think are relevant.
	Paragraph 71, people.
	Let's go to paragraph 71. Here, check this out.
	This is where some people might be very cynical in that it sounds like the plaintiff might be trying to rely on past victimization or alleged victimization in order to substantiate the current allegations of victimization.
	As Ms. Dunphy would soon learn, Julie Andy's probing questions about her sexual life and her sexual abuse That's going to be the theory of the case as to how she's going to retroactively or frame what some might argue,
	as Giuliani will, was consensual behavior to turn it into non-consensual behavior.
	And in reality, same issue that I take with Clinton engaging in sexual activity with Lewinsky, who was an intern, suborted it under political influence and whatever, would be the same thing that I would have, the issue that I would have with Giuliani engaging in a relationship with a client with that history.
	Whether or not all of that improper conduct is evidence of or substantiates the core allegations of sexual assault.
	They'll have a trial, and it's going to be questionable as to whether or not anyone's going to have faith in the objectivity of a trial in whatever jurisdiction this is in.
	Listen, this is where I was giving full benefit of the doubt to the allegations.
	These are allegations, not proven fact.
	And this is where I took very big issue with the allegations.
	I mean, this is where I thought it was a joke for a second.
	Paragraph 85. Ms. Dunphy was frightened.
	This is talking about an event of alleged sexual improper conduct.
	She said she wanted to get dressed, unpack, and settle in.
	She asked for privacy.
	She said she would meet Giuliani in the living room when she was ready, but Giuliani would not leave.
	He sat on the bed and pulled down his pants.
	The following screenshot from the film Borat, subsequent movie film, depicts Giuliani acting in a similar manner to how he acted with Ms. Dunphy.
	I'm going to take the screen out for a second and for this portion.
	This is where I thought it must have been a mistake, a joke, or where most people are going to lose any faith, any benefit of the doubt that they might have been inclined to give the plaintiff.
	Does everyone remember this scene from Borat's subsequent movie film?
	It was a scandal two years ago.
	Because of the media disinformation as to what was going on in that scene.
	The media was suggesting that that scene, Giuliani caught with his hands down his pants, is how the media dubbed it at the time, was evidence that Giuliani was in a room with a young girl engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct.
	In reality, that was a bold-faced lie.
	What was happening in that scene is that the woman in the scene...
	Who did not look 15 in any realm of the universe in any event, was helping Giuliani get unmiked after the interview.
	I did an entire blog breaking this down.
	She was helping Giuliani get unmiked after the interview.
	And Giuliani was reaching down his pants to get unmiked and tuck his shirt back in.
	It had nothing to do with sex.
	It had nothing to do with improper sexual advances, conduct, whatsoever.
	And even at the time...
	Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen was overtly dishonest in how the media was allowing that scene to be framed.
	And Sacha Baron Cohen at the time said, it is what it is.
	Watch the movie for yourself and decide.
	It was bullshit at the time.
	And how the lawyers are using that scene to say, well, this depicts what happened to our poor client.
	He sat on the bed and pulled down his pants.
	The following screenshot from Borat depicts Giuliani acting in a similar manner to how he acted with Ms. Dunphy.
	No, it doesn't, and no, it can't.
	Because anybody who knows knows that in that scene, Giuliani was reaching down to un-mic his mic and tuck in his pants, and it had nothing to do with compelling anyone to do anything improper.
	I mean, that's a red flag, and that's a very, very serious mistake that the lawyers...
	Fell for or made or trying to dupe a jury member into because anybody finds out exactly what that scene was actually about in reality and what the lawyers are trying to spin it as are going to lose faith in this case.
	And then we just get into the accusations of drunkenness, which I unfortunately think there are other...
	There's other corroborating evidence that Giuliani...
	Other testimonial evidence that Giuliani might be a heavy drinker, whether or not he's...
	That he might be a functional alcoholic, that he might be an alcoholic, that he might just like to drink a lot.
	There's a lot of other testimonial evidence from other people who support this.
	So whatever.
	She alleges that he's drinking all the time.
	She wasn't a drinker, it alleges, until the lawsuit alleges that she was drinking all day one day with Giuliani.
	Let me see if I can remember that.
	I should have flagged him in terms of importance.
	He aggressively pursued a relationship with her to facilitate his goal.
	He insisted the idea.
	So he pursued a relationship with her and it happened.
	Giuliani often demanded that she work naked, in a bikini, orange shorts, with an American flag on them that he bought for her.
	When they were apart, they would often work remotely via video conference, and those conferences Giuliani almost always asked her to remove her clothes on camera.
	He often called her from his bed, where he was visibly touching himself from under a white sheet.
	Now, you can read this, as most people will say.
	First of all, she's a very young woman, at least from a picture in the lawsuit.
	You know, my theory, keep your schmeckle in your pants, stay married, don't get divorced.
	It's the easiest way to stay rich and avoid problems.
	Whether or not all of this is, you know, wildly inappropriate for many is one question.
	Whether or not this is evidence of a consensual relationship that one individual is trying to weaponize after the fact or sexual exploitation at the time, there are many ways to retell this story from Giuliani's perspective that would paint it as a totally...
	mutual relationship of consenting adults that are into things that maybe some other adults are not into.
	Hold on, let me see.
	There were some very interesting allegations.
	Here we go.
	Let's just say one screen, two films.
	Allegation 122.
	Paragraph 122.
	During February 2019, Julia's in this habit of calling her obsessively continued, including approximately 34 calls on February 1, 19 calls on February 2, 44 calls on February 5, 32 calls on February 6, 28 calls on February 7, 36 calls on February 11. Now, she's trying to portray this as evidence of, I don't know, some sort of psycho stalker.
	In reality, I suspect what might end up happening with this allegation is Giuliani is going to come back and say, we were working remotely.
	I was calling her up for any number of short things.
	What did that allegation say there?
	Do we have an exhibit?
	You know, one screen, two films.
	And this is not to defend Giuliani whatsoever.
	This is just to say one can easily envision two sides to this story.
	What's clear right now is you have one party trying to weaponize certain facts to make their story, to paint their narrative.
	Giuliani could very easily come back and say, these were five-second calls, 10-second calls.
	I needed this piece of information.
	I needed this piece of information.
	We were working remotely.
	I didn't have access to documents because I was at a hotel room and she had...
	Easy to explain.
	Just I want to highlight that that's how it's going to be easy, in theory, to rebut if there's a rebuttal.
	I don't think Giuliani's coming out and saying, yep, that's it.
	And here we go.
	We got text messages.
	Paragraph 129.
	At the same time, Giuliani kept trying to control Ms. Dunphy.
	February 11, Giuliani texted Ms. Dunphy, you're mine, and nobody will ever have you now.
	And you have a text message between the two of them.
	Is this consensual?
	Is this a text message of someone who's being sexually assaulted, coerced, exploited, whatever?
	Rudy says, I'm dreaming about you.
	She says, I can't believe O is more crowded on a Monday at 9 p.m. than I've ever seen it.
	I guess that's a club.
	Leave your mind.
	I'll leave the second Gustavo arrives.
	Nobody will ever have you now.
	Paragraph 129.
	136.
	Another type of text message that can be read two ways.
	Giuliani called Ms. Dunphy four times.
	He also texted her to the following.
	Good morning, my love.
	Try to call.
	Your scotch is with me.
	I'll bring it for you on Thursday, wherever we meet.
	Let me shower quickly.
	Let me quickly shower.
	Can I shower with you?
	Need to shower, dress before Xfinity and the other IT guys come.
	Good idea.
	And put very modest clothes on, possibly burlap.
	What does this evidence?
	Sexual assault or a consensual relationship that might be wildly inappropriate under the circumstances?
	I want to bring one up here.
	Let me see if it was 141.
	Okay.
	No, 141, 147, 148.
	There was one section where Dunphy, the plaintiff, talks about not being a heavy drinker or not being a drinker at all, not liking scotch.
	And then paragraph 147.
	On March 4, 2019, Giuliani and Ms. Dunphy again spent the day working together.
	Is this something someone who's being sexually assaulted does, or is this someone who's involved in a sexual professional relationship does?
	Giuliani began that day by drinking Bloody Marys.
	They both drank throughout the day while discussing business and Ms. Dunphy's ongoing case.
	Giuliani became drunk and fantasized about visiting a hotel with Ms. Dunphy, bizarrely saying during a recorded conversation that he would tell the doorman to wait outside with the luggage so that we would do it on the floor in the living room.
	We don't even have to make it to the bedroom.
	clothes come off and telling the I need time alone with my girlfriend, with my daughter, with my little girl.
	This became part of a pattern in which Giuliani During the discussion about Ms. Dunphy's case, Giuliani initiated sex with Ms. Dunphy.
	While having sex, Giuliani kept talking about the case and told Ms. Dunphy that he would get the best settlement agreement for her.
	Giuliani also smacked Ms. Dunphy in the face and told her that she was cute.
	Since Ms. Dunphy and Giuliani had been drinking since the morning, Ms. Dunphy was intoxicated and could not have consented to sex with Giuliani.
	Some people are going to read this lawsuit and not have the same response and the same reaction that others might have.
	Consenting to a two-year relationship, engaging in drinking, and then several years later claiming that she was intoxicated and could not have consented to sex that she engaged in after having drunk all day with the guy that she had spent.
	As of this time, what are we, in February?
	March 2019.
	Months now.
	And it goes on for until 2021.
	And then we just get into a bunch of recorded conversations.
	She was recording conversations, people.
	As of when?
	Here we go.
	On March, I've wanted you from the day I interviewed you.
	This statement was recorded.
	Same day, March 19, 2019.
	Giuliani reiterated to Ms. Dunphy that he expected her to continue to be at his beck and call.
	Statement was recorded.
	So that's it.
	We're going to see what comes out of this lawsuit.
	And this is not a case of defending Giuliani at all.
	I think even if it was a consensual relationship, it's a wildly inappropriate one.
	Maybe I'm just a prude who, you know, keeps the schmeckle in the pants and doesn't engage in relationships with clients.
	Why now, says Sliskos.
	Yeah.
	Why now?
	I mean, it could...
	Look, at least it's not 35 years, so at least it's four years, three years, 20, 21, two and a half years.
	It's more timely.
	One can understand why there might be pressures, trauma, etc., if it's legitimate.
	But you read those allegations and a lot of people are going to say, is this a wildly inappropriate consensual relationship between two adults or is this sexual assault?
	But including the still shot from the movie Borat and saying this is what he did to me when in the movie he was doing nothing more than taking the mic out and tucking in his pants.
	Some people might not appreciate people trying to dupe them.
	All right.
	Now we do have to get to Elon Musk goes full anti-Semite.
	We're going to save some stuff for the Locals Exclusive because we've already run quite a bit of time on this and I've got to go to do the Locals Exclusive and then get back to parenting because it's almost 5 o 'clock.
	Elon Musk goes full anti-Semite after George Soros dumps Tesla shares.
	That's how it is.
	It's criticized, George Soros, you're an anti-Semite.
	The Twitter CEO did not take the news well at all.
	Elon Musk has gone all in on the classic conservative anti-Semitic trope of blaming George Soros for everything.
	Oh, everything.
	Seemingly all because the older billionaire.
	Sold his Tesla stock.
	Soros' family office, Soros Fund Management, bought up stocks in the electric car over the course of 2022, holding a total of 132,000 shares by the end of the year.
	Then the fund capitalized on Tesla's impressive 68% jump, selling off its entire Tesla stake in the first quarter of 2023.
	Soros Fund Management also sold some of its stake in the electric vehicle startup Riven.
	When journalist Brian Krasenstein pushed back, arguing Soros has good intentions.
	Hold on a second.
	I missed something here.
	Jesus.
	Soros Fund Management also sold some of its electric vehicles.
	Musk took issue, took the sales personally.
	Quote, Soros reminds me of Magneto.
	End quote.
	He tweeted late Monday, referring to X-Men villain.
	I don't get the reference enough because I haven't seen him.
	When journalist Brian Krasenstein pushed back, arguing Soros has, quote, good intentions.
	But gets attacked for his political affiliation.
	Musk came back with some full-throated anti-Semitism.
	Let's hear it.
	You assume they are good intentions.
	They are not.
	He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization.
	Soros hates humanity, said the outgoing Twitter CEO.
	I don't know why.
	They have to frame it like that as though he got fired or something.
	Soros declined to comment on the matter when contacted by the New York Republic.
	Unfortunately, it's not the first time that either a conservative Republicans love blaming Soros for everything and anything and everything.
	One recent example is when they blamed him for former President Trump being indicted.
	These people who write this, I don't know what the New Republic is, rely on their viewers or their readers being ignorant buffoons.
	But we'll get there in a second.
	As for Trump, as for Musk, he has let Nazis come back onto Twitter, as well as Kanye West.
	Musk ultimately had to re-ban Kanye, who now goes by Ye, after the musician proudly proclaimed that he loves Hitler.
	Musk himself also shared a Nazi photo while urging people to vote Republican in the 2020 elections.
	Let me see that.
	I don't remember that.
	What was the...
	What was the...
	What was the symbol?
	I don't remember this.
	What was the symbol?
	Here we go.
	Oh, this.
	The Tesla posted a picture of a Nazi soldier with a crate of carrier pigeons on his back with an unread notification badge photoshopped onto the cage.
	Oh, that's...
	That's okay.
	So I don't think we need to read more than that.
	Criticize George Soros.
	Did I just shut down the entire stream?
	Every time I do that, I panic.
	George Soros gets accused of anti-Semitism for saying that he doesn't think George Soros has good intentions, that he wants to destroy the fabric of humanity.
	That article suggests that everyone blames Soros for everything.
	Why they even tried to blame Trump's recent indictment on George Soros, ignoring the fact that the district attorney who indicted Trump on what is probably the most bogus indictment ever, Alvin Bragg, was a Soros-funded, indirectly Soros-funded candidate.
	That Soros gave a million dollars to the Political Action Committee, Color of Change, which then went out and heavily endorsed Alvin Bragg.
	George Soros also heavily endorsed, supported...
	Kim Gardner?
	I don't want to...
	I get mixed up between Kim Gardner and...
	Oh, jeez.
	Who's the one from McCloskey's, Missouri?
	I forget her name.
	I think it's Kim Gardner.
	She just resigned.
	Chat, is that who it is?
	It was Kim Gardner?
	Chat, let me know before I forget.
	Also financed her.
	Another one who, you know, a progressive circuit attorney who basically seeks to undermine the very fabric of society by prosecuting those who defend themselves while not prosecuting those who cause people to defend themselves.
	So it's that small thing.
	He's openly stated that he wants to reshape society.
	Reshape one to one person is destroy the fabric to another when that reshaping causes cities to turn into crime-ridden hellholes, causes district attorneys and circuit attorneys to become politically motivated hacks who will shred and destroy the very system itself in order to pursue political motives.
	But the idea that you can't criticize George Soros because he's Jewish, and the ultimate irony in all of this is that the only anti-Semites are those who look at someone Like George Soros, and don't see a billionaire activist, but see a Jew.
	And I made the joke at the beginning.
	Can I criticize Mayorkas?
	I didn't even know that Mayorkas' mother was Jewish.
	Because I don't pay attention to those things unless they somehow become relevant to the policy.
	George Soros, the fact that he's Jewish is not arguably why he's doing what he's doing.
	The fact that he's Jewish, I would say, is probably irrelevant.
	To criticizing what he's doing and or why he's doing it.
	And you sure as hell don't get to hide behind identity politics to shield yourself from criticism.
	Because George Soros gets it and he deserves it.
	Some people give it to him because of what he did as a 13-year-old boy trying to survive the Holocaust.
	I could even give not someone a pass for what he did, which was actively collaborate with actual Nazis.
	Whether or not he was perpetrating the ills of the Nazis, he was certainly collaborating with, working with, giving names, following around, whether or not he ever confiscated personally stuff from Jewish people who were persecuted by the Nazis.
	He certainly did what he needed to do to survive, and he doesn't seem to have the slightest bit of remorse or regret about it.
	Who am I to judge?
	I've never been under such circumstances.
	Would I have chosen to die?
	Sell my soul to survive.
	I don't know.
	But he's got a history that can't be ignored, and nor does he even ignore it.
	And he's got a present that deserves and warrants critique.
	And you're not an anti-Semite for criticizing someone because they happen to be Jewish.
	In fact, I would argue to say that you are the anti-Semite if you look at someone and say, don't criticize them, they're Jewish.
	You're the anti-Semite.
	Or the racist, if you look at someone and all you see is a Jew or a Black that thus makes them protected from legitimate critique for policy that they engage in.
	And that's all I have to say about that.
	All right, people.
	I think we have to save some stuff for the locals exclusive.
	Let me see what I've got on the back burner here.
	I think we've covered the best of the news.
	Okay, so we covered...
	The by-elections in Canada.
	Portage Manitoba.
	Hashtag elect Maxime Bernier.
	We have covered in detail.
	You now know what's in that Durham report, although I suspect many of you already knew.
	And the media lies to try to spin it.
	And don't be an anti-Semite and immediately and reflexively say that any critique of a Jew is anti-Semitic because they're a Jew, because that means all that you see when you look at that person is a Jew.
	And or a black or a Muslim or anybody.
	Critique of a person based on actual policy is legitimate.
	Period.
	And I think...
	Oh, and we saw the Giuliani.
	So that's it.
	People, do I want to end us with a...
	I'm going to end us with something that'll be fun.
	I went to Murakami Gardens.
	Let me see if I can't actually find a way to play this now.
	We went to Murakami Gardens.
	And it might have just become my favorite place in the area around here.
	It's in...
	I don't know where it is.
	Morikami Gardens is a Japanese-themed, beautiful, beautiful Japanese garden.
	Set up, actually, as a tribute to, on the one hand, the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
	It's among the most beautiful places I've ever seen.
	I'm going to go back.
	We've got a season passed now, so I'm going to be going back often.
	I was there today.
	What I witnessed today with my wife was nothing shy of a veritable battle at Kruger.
	Do you remember that?
	Like the alligator and the lion fighting over the elk or fighting over the deer?
	What I witnessed was nature in all its beauty.
	And we're going to end with this as a...
	I guess it's a white pill for the bird.
	It's a black pill for the minnow.
	And otherwise known as nature.
	I'm going to end with this.
	Head on over to Locals.
	And we're going to continue this because I've still got some more stuff on the back burner.
	Everybody, thank you very much.
	I still haven't gotten confirmation from Dave Smith as to whether or not we've successfully rescheduled for tomorrow night.
	Sidebar.
	There will be a sidebar.
	I hope.
	I should say.
	There will probably be a sidebar.
	And I've got some other good news for tomorrow.
	Stuff that's going to be fascinating that I might have to hold onto for about a week and a half before I can publish it.
	Hold tight.
	Stay tight.
	One way or the other, thank you all for being here.
	I will see you on Locals.
	Are we...
	We've got this.
	I will see you on Locals should you decide to make the journey over there for some Locals exclusive post-stream...
	post-mortem?
	Whatever.
	But watch this.
	You're all getting an exclusive sneak peek because I haven't even published this yet.
	Nature is beautiful.
	And so is the Murakami Gardens.
	This is the Murakami Gardens pond in this beautiful pond.
	There is currently an existential battle for life and death going on.
	You got fish all over there, behind that rock, looking to get these little minnows that you can see right on the rocks over there.
	No, no, oh jeez, where'd the bird go?
	And then, where was the bird?
	Oh, then they got this bird right here, just waiting to nab the minnows.
	Minnows over there, fish.
	Looks like Mayan Cichlid's waiting.
	And the bird, I think...
	Oh, no, the bird's going to where they...
	The bird is going to where they are.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	This is amazing.
	It's amazing.
	Look at this.
	Look at the fish there.
	The fish are waiting.
	I think they're scared.
	The minnows, you can see right in there.
	There's the minnows.
	Okay, you can see the minnows now.
	The bird's coming in.
	This is incredible.
	A little poem in the battle for life, death, survival.
	There.
	Nine sickles in there.
	The minnows.
	Cornered in all angles.
	And on the side, the bird.
	And if they're using each other, that bird is using those fish.
	So like the minnows, right there.
	They're like jocks.
	And for those minnows, that is jocks.
	Yes, yes, okay, there you go.
	It got one.
	It got one and I got it on camera.
	It just ate it.
	Oh my goodness.
	How amazing is that?
	Yes, ladies and gentlemen.
	That is the struggle for life and death at the Morikami Gardens.
	We got it.
	Now the fish have all left.
	The fish have all left because they don't have their bird to play.
	That was the coolest thing ever.
	Where's there an iguana?
	It can't get better than that.
	And then you got your iguana right here.
	What's this like?
	What just happened?
	Oh my goodness.
	I wouldn't have waited that well.
	Determination.
	And then we were waiting as still as that bird.
	Now the fish are back and they're looking for their meal.
	Wow.
	Okay, that was beautiful.
	Let's go.
	That was worth the trip.
	That was worth the wait.
	I can't believe it.
	She doubted me.
	Never doubt the fry.
	I'm going to remove that.
	I want to close this so I don't hear stuff afterwards.
	All right, everybody.
	Thank you all for being here, as always, for spending the afternoon with me.
	I hope it's not been too frustrating.
	I guess that's the white pill.
	I'm going to end the stream on Rumble right now.
	Come on over to Locals, people.
	It's going to be fun.
	See you all there in 3, 2, 1. Peace out, peeps.
	See you on Locals.
	End stream now.

▲